Deranged Rhino

HMMMMMMM... Gee, why would Durham’s team be expanding to include trafficking experts? https://mobile.twitter.com/chiIIum/status/1253336166717259782 (but nothing is happening)

Brennan’s having a real bad week.

Because you're (somewhat) new down here please allow me a moment to underscore this: that opinion of Trump is entirely within bounds. Despite how it may seem, my cause isn't defending Trump the man. He's flawed and rubs more than some the wrong way. Nothing wrong with that. My cause/concerns go to something beyond partisanship -- but Trump the politician is an excellent tool to expose bigger topics/issues which cross party lines.

On that we can agree Though, I'd suggest you keep watching this story over the next few weeks. I'm thinking that we're both in for a surprise about whether or not they did get away with it.

5:45 so... 6:15

All of whom guilty? Which is a more egregious matter to be concerned about in your opinion: A) A campaign worker who seeks out dirt on his or her opponent during the height of a presidential campaign or B) The entire upper echelon of the US Intelligence Community working hand in hand with the White House and a political party in an effort to influence a US election? Let off the hook for what? Taking the meeting, even under the pretenses of obtaining dirt, is not a crime. It happens every day on every campaign at the national level. He didn't lie to Congress about the meeting, he didn't receive anything illegally obtained by Russians during the meeting and use that in the election... so what is he on the hook for other than innuendo? Because knowledge is more appreciated when it's learned for yourself, rather than preached to you by another. I truly am not trying to be pedantic or play gotcha with you, Daz. You've shown a willingness to have a conversation with me on this topic, and it's appreciated. I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand you so we can continue that rather than talking past one another.

... ? So, if the bait was laid out by American Intelligence officials, rather than the Russians you've been told -- that makes zero difference to your calculus?

That seems deeply unconstitutional.

Nothing to see here.... this technology will go right back in the drawer when the pandemic passes...

True indeed. Not just men. Hillary made her career demolishing women who dared accuse her husband. She protected Weinstein and Epstein even after the dirt was known on both. That's not to make this about HRC, but to point out that this is deeper than men = bad. This is systemic and protected by those with power. Because that's ultimately what it's about. Power. They have it, and want to abuse it.

That's fair -- but it's not really about him. It's about who enabled him to abuse as many people as he did and why they allowed it in the first place. It's a strikingly similar list to all those people who enabled Epstein to carry out his activities for decades while visiting the White House and hobnobbing with most of the entertainment and political world. It wasn't just democrats, it was a bi-partisan effort to allow both men to continue unabated. Just listen to No Name's wife: Mind you, this is the same woman whose foundation took millions from the cartels to keep human trafficking pipelines open along the southern border for decades. She knew, and admits that she knew, that Epstein was preying on children for decades and despite running a foundation supposedly dedicated to stopping human trafficking (especially among women and children) yet she said nothing. She did nothing. Why? Because he's in their club. And it is a club.

Amen to the bolded. I've never been more relieved not to be in position to have to make the kind of calls all these folks have been asked to make over the past few months, all the political noise aside.

For the answer, look back to what you just wrote recently: That's the answer. They didn't need to invent dirt, or even hint at dirt in the meeting because it was unnecessary. All that was needed was to have Trump Jr in a meeting with "RUSSIANS!" so the media could run wild with innuendo and smears, flood the airwaves with them until even you -- an otherwise rational and intelligent person, assumes that something happened in that meeting that was nefarious. If they had dropped real dirt, or fake dirt, it would open up a whole new can of worms -- including giving Trump Jr a line of defense to use to change the media narrative. The goal was to smear with innuendo while also creating context to justify surveillance warrants. They achieved both goals.

Correct.

Correct. Also correct.

Because of this: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf Giving up the "dirt" would mean giving up dirt on her own team. She wasn't working for Russia, she wasn't working for Trump. She was working -- via proxy -- for Clinton and Obama. The goal wasn't to make a case to bring to trial. The goal was to create innuendo which the media could then use to aid her client's campaign. You have a much lower bar to reach in the court of public opinion than you do in an actual court of law where the other side gets a bite of the apple.

I'm giving you the logical explanation for it -- you're just not seeing it yet because you're still laboring under the assumption that Trump/Russia was ever real. It never was. It was a piece of fiction created by the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and Obama White House in order to cover up a massive scandal uncovered by then acting NSA director Mike Rogers. The logical explanation for why she'd try to sneak into a meeting under false pretenses is so that the meeting could then be weaponized by the media and the Clinton campaign to smear their opponent with accusations of "working with Russians" that would never stand up in court (but would in the court of public opinion during the height of election season). It was a set up.

And that didn't happen in the meeting -- because the conversation was about Magnitsky/Adoptions, not the election. Thus, no crime was committed. Even if they had given the Trump campaign dirt in that meeting, it still wouldn't meet the bar of what you state above unless they didn't report it to the proper authorities. So we'll never know one way or the other what they would have done had they been given actionable intel. But you're missing the bigger picture. Doesn't it strike you as odd that if the FBI and USIC were so worried that NV was a Russian operative looking to disrupt the 2016 election, as they say now, that they moved mountains to not only let the woman into the country, but to assure she made that meeting? Isn't that strange to you? Isn't it also strange that the same woman met with Glenn Simpson immediately before and after that meeting when Simpson himself testified he doesn't speak Russian and she doesn't speak English? Does the pre-existing connection to Natalia and Fusion GPS not stand out as strange as well in light of everything that came out after that meeting?

Adoptions is what Trump Jr said Natalia discussed. That's why he left. He went there under the pretense of hearing about Clinton. This is clear in his testimony to Congress. There's a big difference between what you're stating and what actually happened.

So -- a bunch of made up or sensationalized talking points with a heaping of a defense for human traffickers thrown in for good measure. Good work, bro.